The need for monsters as beings rather than statblocks.

[tomBitonti]

Sure. But, on the gripping hand, you can't successfully test everything at once. Testing materials ought to be focused to test specific areas, to keep the issues easily identifiable - a good test plan limits the number of variables tested at each stage.

You can't test everything at once, but you do want to concentrate on the most important things first.

Putting mechanical details before the interplay behind mechanical details and the monster's story seems to say to me that the monster's story and how that informs play is less important than the mechanical details.

TomB

 

[Aberzanzorax]

You may not be surprised that I disagree with you somewhat.

First, on the 4e MM: it has the following to say about Hook Horrors (I've slighltly toyed with the sequencing, and elided some of the content, including repetition):

Hook horrors drag victims to their deaths using their powerful hooked arms. These pack omnivores scour the Underdark in search of live prey, foraging when necessary. . . Hook horrors are omnivorous but prefer meat to plants. Rumor has it that they prefer the flesh of drow over any other. Not surprisingly, drow slay wild hook horrors and take young and eggs to raise as slaves. . .

Hook horrors live in total darkness. They can see in lit environments, but in the dark of the deep earth they navigate using echolocation. They Hook horrors communicate with one another using . . . clicking noises they make with their mouths and carapace. . . An Underdark explorer might become aware of nearby hook horrors by these noises. . . The eerie clicks echo in the Underdark, warning prey that death is near. . .

Although they hunt in small packs, hook horrors also gather in larger groups called clans. A particular clan, ruled by its strongest egg-laying female, ranges over a wide area in the Underdark. Its members defend clan territory fiercely from any intruder, including unrelated hook horrors.
​

I think that is quite a bit of "fluff". It doesn't strike me as being all about combat at all. I learn about matriarchal clan structure, a fondness for drow (suggesting to players that hook horrors could be used to advantage in a War of the Spider Queen or Vault of the Drow-type scenario), and the taking of eggs for enslavement. We certainly get told about the preference for meat, and - as far as brining cows is concerned - there is no reason why this couldn't be resolved as a simple skill challenge.

Second, more generally - I don't find the "rules should follow story" mantra very useful. Mechanics, in my view, should evoke story. If a situation is meant to be scary to the players, or tense, the mechanics should help induce that experience. For me, this is the significance of 4e's tactical mechanics - the players have to think hard, and the game can spend a long time in a difficult and complex situation where the outcome remains in doubt. In my RPGing experience, that's not a bad way to try to evoke an appropriate emotional response in half-a-dozen people sitting around someone's kitchen table.

I'm not surprised that you disagree, but I'm glad you posted. I almost always learn something when you do.

EDIT: AND, welp....I'll be damned! I had written this after a quick glance at the MM to see what you were referring to.

To address your first comment part: That IS quite a bit of story/ecology/fluff. This is one of those cases where the example chosen does not adequately represent the rule. (Course, it was chosen because of the 5e article, not as the posterchild for the 4e MM1).

I still think what I mentioned about the history with 4e MM1 was pretty fair and accurate. Yes, the hook horror has a section of lore...one that's pretty robust actually. But turn to hound or hydra and you'll see what I mean. As a whole, the first MM1 skimps on story/ecology/fluff. Unless I recall incorrectly, and I'm fairly sure I'm not...but I'd be open to being corrected, a number of people didn't like that (and defenders of fluffless monster entries liked it because "they weren't tied to existing fluff", "they could just make their own", and "WotC could pack in more monsters". I also think that WotC heard this message loud and clear, and that they changed modalities for future 4e monster manuals, including more story/ecology/fluff/lore.

But yeah, the hook horror. It has adequate 4e fluff, IMO.

Then I went back, thinking I was right, as the blurb describing the hound and hydra was, as I had been used to, significanty boring and short. But then I read on. It seems that I'm mistaken, and my beef with 4e's MM1 was a matter of formating the information, not an absence of it. Most of the info is built into the lore section (which makes sense as it tells a player how much their character knows...the DM should just read it all). Since I've never DMed 4e, and only read the intro to each monster (not wanting to get into the rules because of player spoilers) I didn't notice/wasn't aware of the fact that most of the info was in lore.

I still do remember a hubbub about the supposed lack of information, though. Maybe many others were mistaken like me? Perhaps the information was there, but wasn't interesting to read in the format they used, making the book more of a reference book (my son likes for me to read my 2e monster manual to him for bedtime stories....I'm positive, even with my newfound respect for 4e MM1, that he wouldn't want me reading from that one). There is still something about the 4e MM1 that I dislike in terms of monsters as "beings"...but I'm now having a much harder time putting my finger on it. Maybe it goes back to that bedtime story component. I'll have to think more on this.

So, yeah. I guess you were right. Good on ya! Guess I learned something from you (again).


To your second part:
I'm not sure I disagree with you (or that you're disagreeing with my overall point.) Rather, it may be the terminology or us talking past one another (or my being unclear).

Perhaps a better way to say it would be "rules should harmonize with story".

My main point is that in creation of a monster there should be an idea, or theme...a purpose for the monster, a set of goals and motivations. I suppose this is the kernel of the monster that starts before any rules or story.

After that, care should be taken that the rules evoke that idea, and make for a good story. Care should also be taken that the development of the story is supported by rules that make sense for that thematic kernel.

What should NOT happen is a selection of rules to fit that kernel with little attention to the monster as a "being", even if it is a dynamic and interesting combat machine.


It's been hard for me to clearly state exactly what I mean...but basically a harmony or synergy between the monster as a "Real thing" and the monster as a "tool in the game to create excitement, atmosphere, and event".

Maybe an example would be somewhat clearer:
If the creature could be replaced by a mindless automoton or golem (even a scary/cute/humorous one as the situation calls for it), but keep the same rules for the creature, then it has failed as a creature, in my opinion. I can't remember exactly, whether golbins or kobolds can do this, or if I'm totally muddled...but, let's say kobolds get a shift as an immediate action any time they are missed. This is an excellent rule in terms of creating a style of "frustrating little buggers". However, if that's ALL we know about them, not their proclivity with traps, their tendency to serve dragons, that they'll only attack in superior numbers, that they're essentially cowards, but greedy desperate cowards...

Then we essentially could replace them with "frustrating little bugger" robots. It'd still evoke the same feeling from the rule; it'd still do everything the kobolds do (assuming that was all we knew about them from the monster manual...not the other things I mentioned).


Hopefully that makes my point more clear: that there is a need for the ecology in order to consider the monster beyond just the encounter...and even within the encounter itself (if kobolds are cowards who depend on superior numbers, they should flee after half of em are down).

 

[avin]

Only arises if the monster is used as a playable race.

Complete disagreement here.

Unless one is playing a "beholder behind the door" game, ecologies are important to create immersive games, where monster behavior makes sense.

 

[pemerton]

It seems that I'm mistaken, and my beef with 4e's MM1 was a matter of formating the information, not an absence of it. Most of the info is built into the lore section (which makes sense as it tells a player how much their character knows...the DM should just read it all). Since I've never DMed 4e, and only read the intro to each monster (not wanting to get into the rules because of player spoilers) I didn't notice/wasn't aware of the fact that most of the info was in lore.

I still do remember a hubbub about the supposed lack of information, though. Maybe many others were mistaken like me? Perhaps the information was there, but wasn't interesting to read in the format they used, making the book more of a reference book (my son likes for me to read my 2e monster manual to him for bedtime stories....I'm positive, even with my newfound respect for 4e MM1, that he wouldn't want me reading from that one). There is still something about the 4e MM1 that I dislike in terms of monsters as "beings"...but I'm now having a much harder time putting my finger on it. Maybe it goes back to that bedtime story component. I'll have to think more on this.

You're right about the hubbub around the 4e MM. It was big enough that WotC changed the format for MM3 and the MVs! (I generally don't like the new format. It makes the information harder to get out, and doesn't have lore DCs. One of the few exceptions is the Wandering Tower in MV2 - its flavour is inspiring in the narrative form in which it's presented.)

BUt I've always been in a minority in arguing that the MM has about the right amount of lore to make monsters significant story elements (with hydras, what I remember without going back to the book is that they come from the primordial Bryakhus (sp?)). I acknowledge that there are mechanical weaknesses in many of the MM monsters (and I always update to MM3 damage, and am careful with solos and elites) but its still one of my favourite ever monster books (up there with Rolemaster Creature and Treasures) for it mix of lore, myth and mechanics that deliver what is promised.

Anyway, I think that you're right about the "bedtime story" thing. If you look at how I resequenced the hook horror information, I made it flow better as a narrative, rather than the discrete bundles of factoids found in the entry itself.

This doesn't bother me, because I don't read the books as "stories". I read them to give me ideas for how to use monsters in my game. But I know the "story" approach is very popular (and not just in MMs - I get the impression it's a big part of the appeal of Paizo's adventure and campaign material). I see this as part of the overall 4e vibe of being upfront about being a game. I find it hard to put my finger on the exact point, because the 1st ed DMG is hugely popular and yet is also upfront about the game being a game. But somehow the way 4e did it seemed to be really unpopular. And in reaction we get more narrative monster flavour text, the narrative spell descriptions in the playtest, etc.

So, yeah. I guess you were right. Good on ya! Guess I learned something from you (again).

Thanks - you're very kind (especially for a messageboard poster!).

My main point is that in creation of a monster there should be an idea, or theme...a purpose for the monster, a set of goals and motivations. I suppose this is the kernel of the monster that starts before any rules or story.

After that, care should be taken that the rules evoke that idea, and make for a good story. Care should also be taken that the development of the story is supported by rules that make sense for that thematic kernel.

<snip>

If the creature could be replaced by a mindless automoton or golem (even a scary/cute/humorous one as the situation calls for it), but keep the same rules for the creature, then it has failed as a creature, in my opinion.

I don't disagree with any of this. But I think we might look to the rules in different ways. So for me, the fact that the kobold description says "Natural humanoid" and gives a reasonable INT stat and doesn't have the undead subtype, and then lists a range of different kobolds filling obviously different cultural roles, already does the job of telling me that they're not automata.

Or look at a different monster, the Deathlock Wight. The fact that it has a power called Horrific Visage, that has the [fear] descriptor, attacks Will and causes psychic damage and a push on a hit already tells me that this thing can suddenly reveal it's true, rotting-corpse visage and this will make its foes flee in fear (that clearly being what the push represents here - and the power is a close blast, meaning that it has a "facing" aspect just as one would expect in this sort of case).

That's part of why I found the 4e MM so inspiring. More than any other monster book I've read or used, the mechanics are incredibly tightly integrated into the presentation and exposition of the creatures.

For those who don't think of the game in such mechanically-informed terms - as in, "How will this play at the table, given the action resolution rules" - I can see that they would find the Wight entry much more sparse than I do.

I also think this ties back to the "bedtime story" thing. Whatever I'm getting out of the book when I read those statblock, it's not like reading a story. It's much more like imagining and preparing a game. For me, the MM is a reference work - but like a good reference work, a useful and inspiring one!

 

[Neonchameleon]

Then I went back, thinking I was right, as the blurb describing the hound and hydra was, as I had been used to, significanty boring and short. But then I read on. It seems that I'm mistaken, and my beef with 4e's MM1 was a matter of formating the information, not an absence of it. Most of the info is built into the lore section (which makes sense as it tells a player how much their character knows...the DM should just read it all). Since I've never DMed 4e, and only read the intro to each monster (not wanting to get into the rules because of player spoilers) I didn't notice/wasn't aware of the fact that most of the info was in lore.

I still do remember a hubbub about the supposed lack of information, though. Maybe many others were mistaken like me? Perhaps the information was there, but wasn't interesting to read in the format they used, making the book more of a reference book (my son likes for me to read my 2e monster manual to him for bedtime stories....I'm positive, even with my newfound respect for 4e MM1, that he wouldn't want me reading from that one). There is still something about the 4e MM1 that I dislike in terms of monsters as "beings"...but I'm now having a much harder time putting my finger on it. Maybe it goes back to that bedtime story component. I'll have to think more on this.

I think a lot of it is because although the lore is there, the 4e MM1 is written with all the charm - and all the functionality - of an instruction manual. It does absolutely magnificently at the job that it is intended to do - produce a manual full of useful and detailed monsters that can be referenced and from which the useful information can be extracted in a matter of seconds at the gaming table. It's not designed to be a bedtime story - it's designed to aid good play at the gaming table.

What should NOT happen is a selection of rules to fit that kernel with little attention to the monster as a "being", even if it is a dynamic and interesting combat machine.


It's been hard for me to clearly state exactly what I mean...but basically a harmony or synergy between the monster as a "Real thing" and the monster as a "tool in the game to create excitement, atmosphere, and event".

Maybe an example would be somewhat clearer:
If the creature could be replaced by a mindless automoton or golem (even a scary/cute/humorous one as the situation calls for it), but keep the same rules for the creature, then it has failed as a creature, in my opinion. I can't remember exactly, whether golbins or kobolds can do this, or if I'm totally muddled...but, let's say kobolds get a shift as an immediate action any time they are missed. This is an excellent rule in terms of creating a style of "frustrating little buggers". However, if that's ALL we know about them, not their proclivity with traps, their tendency to serve dragons, that they'll only attack in superior numbers, that they're essentially cowards, but greedy desperate cowards...

Then we essentially could replace them with "frustrating little bugger" robots. It'd still evoke the same feeling from the rule; it'd still do everything the kobolds do (assuming that was all we knew about them from the monster manual...not the other things I mentioned).

This is the feeling I get with a lot of pre-4e monsters. That everything that makes them interesting comes from the DM and that mechanically they are little robots with a painted on surface. Without this paint things fail utterly - but their bones are very close to that of minature ogres.

4e kobolds (you're thinking of goblins - kobolds get to shift one square as a minor action and swarm you) come in multiple flavours. The small minions who hide and throw rocks. The vicious slingers who reflect the trapsetting by throwing pots full of noxious chemicals. The lethal little skirmishers who do more damage the further they shift in a turn and are quite capable of hamstringing a PC in two strikes. The rare, tough dragonshields who defend the colony.

Even if we add no personality to them beyond that we've a thriving ants nest that doesn't fight fair under any circumstances and that won't let anyone lay their hands on them. They already have a group personality just from the combination of the statblocks and the inherent teamwork that this draws from them.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Actually, that's an excellent point, Neonchameleon.

4e monsters generally do have a neat mechanical schitck that sets them apart from other monsters. I think that was an improvement from prior versions of the game. (I do not like some of the specific schticks, but that doesn't mean the overall idea of each monster being a bit unique doesn't have merit).


What I've been talking about with a synergy between ecology and crunch design would certainly benefit from the 4e mentality of "let's make kobolds different than goblins in more than appearance and backstory/ecology only".

I guess, what I'd really like, is that if I only read their abilities, I'd know what monster it was. Also, if I only read it's ecology, I'd know what monster it was. And if I read them both together, they'd blend perfectly.

That's a tall order to be sure, but lI still think it'd be an excellent goal to shoot for.

 

[Umbran]

You can't test everything at once, but you do want to concentrate on the most important things first.

Yeah, and that would be? The base mechanics for task resolution and combat, or the interactions of monster-specific mechanics with monster specific fluff?

Putting mechanical details before the interplay behind mechanical details and the monster's story seems to say to me that the monster's story and how that informs play is less important than the mechanical details.

The context I'm talking about is the *current playtest* - at the moment, they are playtesting basic class rules, task resolution, and basic combat stuff. I don't see how anything relating to "monster story" should come before the basics of playing the game. That would definitely be "cart before the horse" territory.

 

[tomBitonti]

Yeah, and that would be? The base mechanics for task resolution and combat, or the interactions of monster-specific mechanics with monster specific fluff?

The context I'm talking about is the *current playtest* - at the moment, they are playtesting basic class rules, task resolution, and basic combat stuff. I don't see how anything relating to "monster story" should come before the basics of playing the game. That would definitely be "cart before the horse" territory.

What is most important will depend on one's focus. I don't know what proportion of folks my view represents. Certainly not all, but at least a fair minority. I think enough to make the question of what focus best serves the community to be a good question to ask, and to discuss.

When presenting the new rules, one can present them with a tie between story or theme to mechanics. I don't think that putting in that tie is exclusive of presenting the mechanics, or that it takes away from the mechanics. And, the context is not just the playtest, but also the article, which is a focus on monster design. The discussion is not just on the play of the game. The discussion is also about how the game is put together. Design serves design goals. What are those goals?

TomB

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yeah, and that would be? The base mechanics for task resolution and combat, or the interactions of monster-specific mechanics with monster specific fluff?

The context I'm talking about is the *current playtest* - at the moment, they are playtesting basic class rules, task resolution, and basic combat stuff. I don't see how anything relating to "monster story" should come before the basics of playing the game. That would definitely be "cart before the horse" territory.

What they choose to demonstrate from the playtest tells me what they consider important. It's almost the parts they aren't focussing on that tell me more about the game than the parts they are. And what they've managed to do with the Hook Horror is take a scary monster and make something that is (a) boring and (b) fractures any notion of realism by inflicting obvious crippling wounds in the fluff ("impale"). This is what [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] is proud enough to show the community? A walking sack of hit points that trivially inflicts literally crippling wounds and doesn't do anything interesting, instead just making a full attack with some fluff?

 

[Neonchameleon]

I guess, what I'd really like, is that if I only read their abilities, I'd know what monster it was. Also, if I only read it's ecology, I'd know what monster it was. And if I read them both together, they'd blend perfectly.

That's a tall order to be sure, but I still think it'd be an excellent goal to shoot for.

It may be a tall order, but it's the order 4e was shooting for. And by the two Monster Vaults it was fairly consistently hitting that mark. WoTC still has the staff around who could do that (I think). So why can't they here?

And I looked up the MM1 hydra last night. And realised why I remember it as boring - rather than the lore it's that it's just a large sack of hit points that does multiple attacks* (the lore explicitely saying that its heads don't regenerate). Then I looked at the MV hydra. Night and day. You get to cut off the hydra's heads in MV - and if you don't properly cauterise the stumps they grow two more. (Cauterising takes damage from one of two elements - but if the hydra breathes fire, don't bother trying to use fire against it). Now that's a hydra! (It's also very close to the 3.5 hydra in the way it works).

* Sounds a bit like our prototype Hook Horror.